-
I agree, but does it look the same, especially the degree to which the screws heads for the low E and A tuners are stripped? My first thought was, "Did someone mess with this guitar in the time between TME took the photo I shared and the date omphalopsychos received it? A questionably bad situation made worse?
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
-
03-09-2024 10:22 AM
-
Steve the reason that I removed the link the TGP discussion was because the thread was closed and heavily modified to allow TME to have the last word. In their reply, the merchant made a number of false accusations and misleading comments. They removed a post in which I replied to his comments one by one. Additionally, after I replied to his comments with my corrections, he emailed me to apologize for the inaccuracies. I asked him for a public correction but instead he edited his post to allow himself the last word. I deleted the post here with the link to TGP because I went to bed and wanted the opportunity to address the state of the discussion with TME before people read it and made assumptions.
In a moment I’ll address your concerns.Last edited by omphalopsychos; 03-09-2024 at 11:28 AM.
-
Originally Posted by QAman
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Steve, this an example of the misleading and false statements from TME and the type of controversy that can be created by sharing here without recognizing that the thread there was heavily modified by the moderators. Several posts by the TME employee and my response to his post were deleted. I believe it is fair for you to allow me to address them here.
-
For the readers here curious about what happened on TGP last night.
The TME employee engaged and made a number of accusations against me last night. What you see on that thread is the heavily modified message compared to what he previously wrote. He dramatically changed his tone and removed some of his accusations. Instead of publicly admitting he had made errors and unwarranted accusations, he emailed me privately to say "Juan..not sure if you realized that was sent to Joe, not me, hence my having zero knowledge of this. I'm happy to revise my comments on TGP, " and then proceeded to edit his post to remove numerous retaliatory remarks.
Fortunately I practiced diligent recordkeeping of the discussion. Unfortunately I didn't realize the need to do so until too late, after he had already started to modify his comments. The quote below is his post on TME after many modifications. He removed, for instance, a tenth bullet point in which he accused me of never returning the guitar.
Hi all,This is Eliot from The Music Emporium. I'm the employee being referenced in this thread and others that this customer has started online. I wanted to reply here so that I could clarify a few of the accusations being leveled against me and the shop where I work. One of my main jobs at TME is to oversee the electric side of the store, namely boutique guitars, and was hired about 8 years ago to establish and grow the electric side of the shop.
This situation is incredibly unfortunate for many reasons. To help paint a picture, we're a small shop despite what it might appear online. We all do many things like all small businesses, and we take a lot of pride in our business, our business dealings, and in trying our best to do right by our customers. Many of our customers we consider friends, and I mean that sincerely.
That said, we're not perfect and sometimes we get things wrong - we're human, and most importantly, we aren't trying to deceive anyone. We simply made a mistake in this instance by selling a pre-owned guitar that came in with swapped tuners and didn't catch it.
For some perspective here, all the used instrument listings on our site feature copy we drafted speaking to the possibility of mistakes. It's been there for months if not years, and is on the Gibson product page in question. This is it for those unfamiliar with our shop:
View attachment 1275208
On our Exchanges & Returns page, we list how this process should work so that we can remedy any issues that might arise, quickly, and for whatever reason - please note item #1 and #3 especially.
View attachment 1275218
Here are the pics of the tuners from the listing.
View attachment 1275221
In initially working with the OP, I admitted that it's entirely possible we might have missed the tuner swap (not after he got info from Gibson - that's outright incorrect), that the QC at Gibson can be off at times so maaaaybe that's what it is? (I'm not flippantly slamming Gibson, they're a factory, factories also are made up of mistake-prone humans, it happens and there's a ton of chatter online about it. I also said this before hearing from Gibson and seeing his photos, I was going on our photos only which don't look nearly as bad), and that I'd reach out to Gibson and circle back with him the following day, as soon as I get word from them, and we'll chart a path forwards - "does that sound like a reasonable plan to you?" Yes, was the reply I got. Before hanging up, I reassured the OP that we want him to be happy and that I was confident we'd find a solution should we have indeed made a mistake - here we are.
Hopefully this is clarifying:
1. The OP purchased this guitar at 11pm on February 11th via our website. To my knowledge, no conversations - emails, phone calls, web chats - were had with anyone at the shop about the guitar's condition or originality prior to a purchase.
2. The OP informed me that he takes unboxing videos of each of his purchases in order to document the condition of their purchases...but, see #3 below
3. We weren't notified about the tuner issue until this week, on March 4th (please re-read item #1 on the returns & exchanges image I provided if need be). Why did it take so long - did the OP also miss it?
4. I indeed had my colleague reach out to a friend who works for Gibson to ask if it might be possible that the waffle back tuners were original, immediately after hanging up the phone with the OP after our first call at the end of the day on Tuesday. I also emailed Gibson the following morning with the serial number to find out if they could provide me with the spec sheet for this guitar (they did, though the OP called them, got an answer, and beat Gibson's response to me time-wise).
5. I asked the OP - "what is the best case scenario for you in terms of resolving this situation - what does that look like?" A refund of some kind or a return were the options presented.
6. The next day, I offered a $150 refund which would be enough to cover the cost of replacement tuners and the installation - that was the logic I used to come to that number. That number was shot down, which is totally fine - but - no other figure that would have been suitable was countered by the OP.
7. The OP wanted a full refund and no restock fee, we cover all shipping, since we'd knowingly (is the implication) represented this guitar incorrectly. I was told that not agreeing to his terms would result in a chargeback with his credit card company.
8. Since a refund was the only appropriate solution for the OP, I agreed that we'd refund the purchase, we'd obviously waive the 5% restock fee, but we wouldn't cover return shipping. This makes the 3rd return of an instrument by this customer in as many years under oddly similar circumstances, and we lose money every time this happens - hence why we tried to draw a line at not covering return shipping.
9. The owner of TME decided to call the customer as an act of taking ownership of his business, this situation, and our mistake - the OP not only didn't take the call, he didn't return the call, instead sending an email response and is starting disparaging threads on the internet about The Music Emporium.
Listen, if I'm being honest, I detest these situations and not because the OP brought an issue to us - it happens, we make mistakes, and we're more than happy to try to resolve them.
No, I generally detest these situations because we're here, on the internet, discussing them - without the OP engaging directly with us to find a solution that is reasonable to both parties. It's easier I suppose to say we're awful people, a terrible company to engage with, and we're greedy, etc...than it is to simply find a reasonable solution to a problem (and pattern with this customer). And let's be honest here - this a problem that can be resolved without taking it to forums online.
I'm more than happy to engage with anyone about this issue, the OP included. Not sure why it came to this with the OP, but it's hard for me to sit by while a lopsided picture is being painted about who we are and our business in general. I wanted to jump in and say hey, I'm the guy being talked about, this is my name (not my online handle), not hide behind anything, not paint a one-sided awful sounding story, and say I made a mistake, thought the tuners could be original, and tried to resolve this situation in a way that was amicable to all involved. I'm taking responsibility for this situation.
Sincerely appreciate you hearing me out.
~Eliot
The following was my reply to him, which the TGP moderators removed (likely because they have a relationship with shop owners and were asked to).
Eliot,
Allow me to respond to your statements one at a time.
Regarding your bullet points #1-3:
Indeed, your observation is right that it took me a considerable amount of time to identify the issue with the instrument. But this doesn't negate the fact that the portrayal of the instrument, deliberate or not, was inaccurate, and I brought this to your attention as soon as I realized it. The guitar, being a reliced one, made it challenging for me to spot the alteration straight away. I held strong faith in the accuracy of your website's description that stated, "Condition: Excellent+. Very little signs of prior ownership and only light play wear." You should know as a retail industry professional that the stated time window of a merchant's return policy does not eliminate the customer's right to make valid claims that may be discovered later.
Regarding bullet point #4:
If indeed you reached out to Gibson, and you wish to provide proof of this, that is entirely acceptable. Nonetheless, I'm somewhat taken aback by the perceived lack of initiative in this situation. It took me a remarkably short time of only ten minutes to find a resolution with Gibson. Given your professional standing in this industry, I anticipated your capability to handle such matters autonomously. All I needed to do was to dial the toll-free number.
Regarding #5:
Would it be helpful if I referenced our previous email conversations here? As you're aware, you extended an offer of $150 to me, with no intention of offering more. I would respectfully advise against making untrue statements in this public arena if you want to avoid potential embarrassment. Nowhere in our email exchanges did you ask, "what is the best case scenario for you"? Additionally, this all comes after your initial effort to persuade me that the tuners were original, and the poorly executed craftsmanship was a mere characteristic of Gibson's quality. On top of all of this, you ceased replying to my emails once I communicated that the $150 offer was inadequate and that I expected TME to cover all shipping costs as was advised by my bank in accordance with consumer protection laws and payment network policies.
Regarding #6:
As a dealer, I would anticipate your knowledge and understanding of appraisal and depreciation. The guitar has indeed been modified. The new tuners' installation was less than professional, resulting in damage to the instrument. True, holes can be filled, and tuners can be replaced. The price for new Grover Rotomatics stands at $90. However, this does not reflect the cost of a tuner with a VOS patina, which is stock on this guitar and would need to be sourced directly from Gibson - a company that you've openly criticized and seem to struggle to communicate with effectively. The costs associated with engaging a luthier to plug the holes, and repair any further damage that has been caused, have not been calculated due to the severity of the visible damage and the uncertain depth of the hidden damage. I wonder—in terms of extra screw holes—how much additional damage the previous owner might have inflicted?
Regarding #7 and #8:
Regarding the point that I’ve made three returns to you, you should be transparent about the nature of those returns and not try to deceive the readers here.
If you perceive that my purchases from TME reflect a pattern of behavior, allow me to delineate the nature of each transaction:
(1) Collings I 30 LC: Procured pristine and new from your business; totally satisfied and no issues found. I never returned this to you.
(2) Martin 00 18: You described the frets as being in outstanding condition, yet in practice, several frets above the 14th fret were dislodged, making the guitar unplayable. Fortunately Joe was able to step in earlier this time instead of having other employees mishandle the situation. We managed to reach a consensus and decided to share the return cost. Recall that this is what I initially proposed to you.
(3) Waterloo: There were no discrepancies or misrepresentations; simply put, it didn't resonate and I returned it at my own expense in alignment with your return policy. It’s amazing that you would even raise this here since this was not under similar circumstances by any means. I incurred all costs in returning this instrument to you.
Additionally, the provision for chargebacks in instances of goods not delivered as described is a key element of the consumer protection framework in the United States. It ensures that cardholders have a recourse to obtain a refund when they are the victim of misleading or false descriptions, hence, ensuring consumer protection and promoting trust in the business ecology. If you have a problem with me exercising my consumer rights or if you intend to retaliate against me for exercising them, you should be aware of the consequences of this sort of behavior.
Consequences for businesses that retaliate against consumers for initiating valid chargebacks can include:
Legal Action: The consumer could potentially sue the business for retaliatory actions. This could result in financial penalties and could damage the business's reputation.
Increased Scrutiny: The business could come under increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies, such as The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which could conduct its own investigation into the business's practices.
Reputational Damage: Retaliation can lead to negative reviews and bad press, which can harm the business's reputation and deter future customers.
Termination by Payment Processors: If a business has too many chargebacks or engages in retaliatory behavior, payment processors may consider the business high risk and could terminate their relationship, making it harder for the business to process payments.
In summary, it is a poor business practice to retaliate against a customer who makes a valid chargeback request, and it can result in penalties and restrictions, reputational damage, and potential legal actions.
Regarding point #9.
I responded to Joe via an email in which I conveyed my unavailability for two reasons: one, because I was genuinely occupied, and two, because I wanted an accessible record of our dialogue. After you had stopped responding to my request for remediation, I was ready for a direct resolution process. I opted not to engage in a phone conversation, however, this did not mean that I was not open to discussion. Joe and I continued to exchange emails that afternoon. We managed to agree on a course of action, during which I expressed my apprehension about the staff. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive a response to my most recent email to Joe. However, I ask you to refrain from misconstruing this as a refusal on my part to engage in discussions.
Regarding point #10.
I must respectfully highlight that the claim you've just made is inaccurate. Given that you have access to the tracking number of the returned item, it would have been prudent to verify your facts before levying unfounded allegations against me. Today, I carefully packaged the guitar, meticulously documenting its condition, produced a boxing video, and showed great caution in boxing it in a manner that would ensure its safe arrival to you in the same condition as it was sold. As TME purchased and insured the label, I extended an offer to Joe to utilize any documentation I've created to aid in the event of shipping issues. To quote my exact words, "If a claim arises with the carrier, I'll be more than happy to provide the necessary documentation." The guitar is en route, and I've acted promptly with our mutual best interests at heart.
My apologies, Eliot, but I must remind you that we did indeed have direct conversations. It was you who ceased responding to my emails. Moreover, I've had an extensive exchange with Joe where I was the last one to respond, outlining my plan to return the guitar and update my bank accordingly. I have been maintaining transparency with you from the outset. To ensure clarity, I've just forwarded that email to you.
Last edited by omphalopsychos; 03-09-2024 at 11:49 AM.
-
This may be off the wall, but I’m wondering if TME might actually (and foolishly) have assumed and believed that the clearly botched tuner swap was part of the Murphy lab process. If so, this experience may well have resulted from their simple ignorance and subsequent reluctance to admit the truth that they didn’t know enough to recognize the problem. I think this is a very reasonable possibility that (if correct) is a serious embarrassment for the dealer.
When Fender first came out with a relic’ed Strat, I laughed at the idea. It was ‘95, and I’d just switched to a 7, so I had no interest in it. But my dealer got one of the first ones and was so impressed with the instrument itself that he suggested that I come in just to see and play it. It was the best Strat and one of the best solid body guitars I’d ever played. I’ve since played several relics that were excellent Instruments and felt “right”. I wouldn’t pay for the process on a new guitar unless that specific guitar felt, played and sounded so good that the artificial wear and the price premium were overridden and it was better than a new non-relic version of the same guitar. But I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a used relic if I loved the instrument regardless of finish.
But I’ve never seen a factory “relic” that included inexpertly installed non-original parts as part of the relic process except for replicas of a few famous instruments whose famous owners did it first. Even the CS Cruz SRV Strats weren’t butchered - the LH trem and physical damage were exact replicas of Stevie’s “#1”, not random attempts to make it look worn.
Dealers who sell sophisticated goods should know exactly what they’re buying, consigning, and selling. There’s no excuse for willful ignorance and no excuse for misleading buyers. If known dealers don’t provide better information, service, and communication than random sellers on CL, there’s no reason to pay dealers’ premium prices.
-
I addressed this misleading accusation in my response to TME, which is posted above. Originally Posted by SlowJoeJones
Steve I hope you can see above how your lack of discretion and predisposition to side against me is hurting my name and reputation. I hope other forum members read my response above, but if not, I'm pasting it below. I have made two returns to TME prior to this transaction and one non-returned transaction.
The first return was because of another instance, which some forum members are aware of here, in which they delivered a vintage guitar that was described incorrectly. In this transaction, TME was more cordial and we agreed to split the shipping cost to avoid any further escalation.
In the only other return, I bought a Collings Waterloo from them, which turned out to be not a great guitar. I asked them about the return policy prior to purchasing and I let them know I wasn't 100% sure about the instrument and wanted to try it out. They said that's fine as long as I cover shipping cost both ways in case of a return, which I did.
I have also made returns on purchases from other dealers and in every single instance, I make the return entirely at my own cost. I purchased a guitar from TR Crandall that didn't suit me. I covered all costs of the return. Their return policy was that I would pay shipping fees both ways as well as card processing fees. I probably lost $400 on that. No big deal. It was at my discretion and I knew the cost. Crandall did not try to retaliate against me for the return. They value my repeat business and we are friends. I never visit new york without stopping by to say hi to Alex, Scott, and Tom. I even sent my 1928 L5 to Tom for new frets and allowed him to keep it for several months to take measurements in support of his own L5 builds he is working on. I've also made a discretionary return to Thunder Road Guitars in Portland. It was a 39 L5 that just didn't have much of a voice. I called Will and explained it to him. His policy was also that I would cover all shipping fees and card processing fees. I obliged because the return was purely discretionary. There is no resentment. Will and I still correspond via instagram. In all cases that I process a return out of my own discretion, I ensure that things are made right by the dealer, just as I did when I returned the waterloo to TME. The only instances where I've had to force a return at the cost of the dealer have been when (1) the item is not as described and (2) the dealer refuses to cooperate in alignment with consumer protection rights. Even the much maligned shop in the pacific NW handled a similar situation much more gracefully. They misrepresented an item, I notified them, they sent me a label and covered the expense because they knew it wasn't worth it to the business to get out of hand.
Regardless, people should be aware of the numerous relationships I have with dealers nationwide rather than accept this false accusation as representative of my behavior. Additionally, I have sold and bought guitars from lots of forum members and anyone who has done business with me has seen the level of forthrightness and care I take in all transactions. I would appreciate if Steve, Lawson, and Slow Joe would exercise discretion prior to repeating misleading claims and further harming my reputation.
Regarding the point that I’ve made three returns to you, you should be transparent about the nature of those returns and not try to deceive the readers here.
If you perceive that my purchases from TME reflect a pattern of behavior, allow me to delineate the nature of each transaction:
(1) Collings I 30 LC: Procured pristine and new from your business; totally satisfied and no issues found. I never returned this to you.
(2) Martin 00 18: You described the frets as being in outstanding condition, yet in practice, several frets above the 14th fret were dislodged, making the guitar unplayable. Fortunately Joe was able to step in earlier this time instead of having other employees mishandle the situation. We managed to reach a consensus and decided to share the return cost. Recall that this is what I initially proposed to you.
(3) Waterloo: There were no discrepancies or misrepresentations; simply put, it didn't resonate and I returned it at my own expense in alignment with your return policy. It’s amazing that you would even raise this here since this was not under similar circumstances by any means. I incurred all costs in returning this instrument to you.
Last edited by omphalopsychos; 03-09-2024 at 11:46 AM.
-
Everyone knows that guitar players are super finicky. Anyone that sells guitars online where the player can’t play it first must offer a return policy for any reason as long as the buyer pays the shipping.
Otherwise the seller won’t be selling guitars for very long.
Every stand up guitar store gives a no question return period of at least 72 hours. Stores like Sweetwater gives 45 days.
All this drama could have been avoided with a simple sorry you didn’t like it send it back response.
I sent a LeGrand, and Tal Farlow back to The Music Zoo and we still have a great relationship. I remain a loyal customer.
-
I have personally known Juan (Omphalopsychos) for quite awhile and can report that he is a man of integrity. He is also very picky about his gear. A musical instrument dealer must cater to a buyer like Juan if they are to charge the top dollar prices that a dealer gets. Sometimes a dealer will make a mistake in a purchase that will result in a problem with the sale (as happened in this case). The dealer is under a legal obligation to make it right (In the law, it is known as the warranty of merchantability). As a retired attorney, I can assure all who read this thread that Juan would prevail in a legal proceeding, but the fact is, it would never come to that. Juan's credit card company would, in time, make things right. As a former business owner (three restaurants and a nightclub), I understand Steve's (QAman) instinct to protect the business owner from harm to it's reputation (that would be my instinct as well). Often, customers will use the nuclear option (publicly air disappointment with the retailer) rather than take the time to resolve the dispute in private. Given the facts of this case, I do not think Juan erred in letting us know about his experience.
Between the risk of shipping and sellers lack of full disclosure (both by ignorance and intent), buying guitars sight unseen is a minefield. Ask yourself this: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wylyvGufxv0
-
Me and Juan have not always gotten along here because we both have strong opinions at times, so there is no bias on my part. It is plain as the day is long the man is very serious about his gear and that TME has not handled the situation right. I also would take Juan's word and opinion on any particular piece of equipment over any shop owner. I would buy from him, sight unseen, based on his word and reputation for integrity alone. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I have personally known Juan (Omphalopsychos) for quite awhile and can report that he is a man of integrity. He is also very picky about his gear. A musical instrument dealer must cater to a buyer like Juan if they are to charge the top dollar prices that a dealer gets. Sometimes a dealer will make a mistake in a purchase that will result in a problem with the sale (as happened in this case). The dealer is under a legal obligation to make it right (In the law, it is known as the warranty of merchantability). As a retired attorney, I can assure all who read this thread that Juan would prevail in a legal proceeding, but the fact is, it would never come to that. Juan's credit card company would, in time, make things right. As a former business owner (three restaurants and a nightclub), I understand Steve's (QAman) instinct to protect the business owner from harm to it's reputation (that would be my instinct as well). Often, customers will use the nuclear option (publicly air disappointment with the retailer) rather than take the time to resolve the dispute in private. Given the facts of this case, I do not think Juan erred in letting us know about his experience.
Between the risk of shipping and sellers lack of full disclosure (both by ignorance and intent), buying guitars sight unseen is a minefield. Ask yourself this: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wylyvGufxv0
To Guy LaHoser from BF Egypt music emporium who decided to jump in here to defend his poor business practices: It sounds like it's time for a remedial course on how to treat people my man. Maybe I can get a job with you in your Texas division cause I could've sorted this out for you in two sentences. Here you go: "Juan, very sorry you are not satisfied with your instrument. Please return it to us for a FULL refund." Which means you pay shipping both ways.
You lose what? $200? 300? His CC company is gonna force you take take it on the chin anyways. You could've kept your integrity, and still have a guitar with some cockeyed fucked up looking tuners that maybe someone else in the next decade will want when you re-price it accordingly or fix it. It's just not gonna be anyone on Jazz Guitar Forum. Part of business sometimes is taking losses. I think your 4 experts let you down, maybe you should hold them accountable instead of slinging accusations at Juan. Maybe it's time to find a job scrubbing plates with me in the kitchen because I too lack customer service skills, just not quite at "screw u on this guitar deal" level. Your attempt to do over a respected guy here has sullied the rep of every TME out there for me, and now how many others? Maybe you're not aware that word of mouth is still the most powerful tool in the music business and unfortunately for you people talk. One man tells two people. Those two people tell two other people. Look up the meaning of the word "exponential". I will be passing this onto a couple guitar junkies downtown this afternoon.
Private message me and I'll give you the address you can send the thank you card for my assistance in helping you resolve this manner in the professional manner. Please do better next time.
-
To me, it's simple. Vendor had the instrument in their hands. They should have disclosed the state of the replacement tuners as this was an apparent flaw. If they didn't know the tuners were a poorly executed hack job and non-original, they should have. It's their business to know. And they have an obligation to disclose.
I see no defense being presented from the The Music Emporium on the merits. That is: what was stated and disclosed about the instrument up front and what is their stated policy on returns when the instrument is not as stated. Instead I see vague attacks having nothing to do with the specific transaction. Vendor position seems to be 'difficult customer' and 'it's hard doing business online'. Really? Pretty sure the credit card company will approach this with a bit more specificity.
-
"It's not a defect. It's a feature."
Four experts, three repair staff, two lensmen and a savvy businessman in the bargain couldn't catch them; they must be fecking blind or willfully deceitful.
-
-
Thanks all for the support.
Allow me to make it clear that the purpose of this thread is not to "have fun at the business' expense". We spend time on this forum writing reviews of gear and dealers as well. Frequently someone posts a for sale ad or a PSA in which members call out inaccuracies in the listing. These corrections, while they obviously reflect poorly on the businesses being described, are not slanderous in intention and are not perceived as such. Additionally, there have been many posts on this forum sharing positive and negative experiences with different dealers. In these instances, forum members have acted with integrity in describing things factually accurately in order to provide a review of an experience, as they would on Yelp or Google. Why not take it to Yelp/Google? It's simple: the audience who benefit the most from such reviews are all present here. I have always had wonderful experiences with dealers like Larry Wexer, TR Crandall, Retrofret, Gruhn, and others and have been vocal about these experiences. But I and others sometimes have to share experiences that we think others should be informed of. I cannot count how many times in recent memory, I have seen less experienced buyers, especially senior citizens, who have purchased gear that was misrepresented, looking to the forum for advice and unable to resolve disputes with the merchant. I hate seeing that happen and my review here has two intentions, which I have made very clear: (1) to provide a factual, thorough, and honest account of an experience that I hope others will not have to repeat, and (2) to reiterate to forum members the importance of documenting facts (this entails downloading dealers' listings and photographs, filming your unboxing, taking photos of the instrument, seeking expert opinion when suspecting something is off) and IMPORTANTLY using your credit card and being aware of the legal framework protecting consumer rights. Especially with the heightened concern of fraud and forum members who have recently been scammed, I was presenting this story as a case study of how, when interacting with a difficult dealer, it was recourse to my credit card company that eventually helped arrive at the fair solution.
Now, I want to ask everyone to ensure that further comments are respectful to this dealer, even if the comments reflect your criticism of how things were handled. It's apparent that they made a mistake. They have accepted responsibility privately and are giving me a refund. It's concerning that an employee of the dealer took it upon himself to post false accusations and slanderous remarks against me on TGP last night, but there is no need to return the favor. I have been extremely honest and respectful (while firm and direct) in my interactions with the dealer as well as in my remarks here and on TGP. I hope that we can all apply the same tone of voice and heed my second post on this thread. "There's no reason ever to let things get too heated or disrespectful or out of hand in any matter." This applies to TME, its employees, and the forum members here. This is a public review, much like you would find on Yelp, Reverb, Amazon, Google, or anywhere else. There is no need to beat up on anyone or take uncourteous tones.
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos